LAWS(PAT)-1988-9-26

AWADHESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On September 20, 1988
AWADHESHWAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the appeals arise out of the same judgment and order and so With consent of the learned counsel for parties they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Appellant Awadheshwar Singh has been convicted under sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the TCode) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. He has filed the Criminal Appeal No. 387/154. But at the time of hearing this appeal learned counsel for the appellant said that the appellant Awadheshwar Singh has died and this fact has not been controverted and as such this appeal (Cr. AppI. 387/84) has abated as against him.

(3.) Appellants Rangnath Singh, Bindesh wan Singh, parsuram Singh, Triloki Singh, Satish Singh, Gandhi Singh, Jitendra Singh, Jwala Singh and Gyandutt Singh of Criminal Appeal No. 413/84 and Anil Singh and Raghu bansh Singh of Criminal Appeal No. 436/84 have been convicted under sections 302/149 of the Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Appellants Surendra Singh and Devendra Singh of Criminal Appeal No. 594/84 have been convicted under section 302 of the Code and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. These two appellants have further been convicted under section 148 of the Code and 27 of the Arms Act and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months each respectively under the said counts. Further appellants Anil Singh, Bindeshwari Singh, Parsuram Singh, Surendra Singh, Awadheshwar Singh and Bengali Singh have been convicted under section 148 of the Code and have been awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years each. Appellants Rangnath Singh, Triloki Singh, Satish Singh, Gandhi Singh, Jitendra Singh, Jwala Singh and Gyandutt Singh have further been convicted under section 147 of the Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each. All the sentences of the appellants have been ordered to run concurrently.